Ubuntu 11.04 released, a Natty Narwhal rises from the depths

Canonical has announced the official release of Ubuntu 11.04, codenamed Natty Narwhal. This major update introduces the new Unity desktop shell, which is designed to improve ease of use and deliver a more modern user experience.

Ubuntu founder Mark Shuttleworth unveiled the Unity project a year ago during an Ubuntu Developer Summit keynote in Brussels. The new shell was originally created for the Ubuntu Netbook Edition and first shipped as the default netbook environment in Ubuntu 10.10. The Ubuntu developers have worked intensively over the last six months to adapt Unity for the desktop. The effort entailed a significant overhaul of the Unity frontend that boosts its performance, reliability, and suitability for use on larger screens.

The new Unity-based desktop shows a task dock on the left-hand side of the screen and a panel at the top with an embedded global menu. A screen overlay that emerges from the top panel provides access to additional features through modular content panels called "lenses." The default environment comes with an application launcher lens and a file management lens.

Although many of the changes introduced in Unity represent tangible usability improvements, there are some parts of the environment—particularly the application lens—that still have some rough edges. Some users might also be put off by Unity's lack of configurability. The position of the dock is one of several key aspects that can't be customized. Users who prefer a more traditional environment or want to wait for Unity to mature further before making the switch can simply choose the "Classic" Ubuntu desktop in the system login interface.

Unity requires support for hardware-accelerated rendering, which might not work consistently across all hardware. The classic environment is also used as a fallback for users with unsupported hardware. A "2D" version of Unity, built with Qt, that doesn't require compositing is under active development and could serve as the fallback in future versions of Ubuntu. The 2D version is shipping today in the Ubuntu ARM netbook port, but not on the regular Ubuntu CD.

In addition to delivering the new Unity shell, the new version of Ubuntu also brings some improvements to desktop theming and bundled software. The Gtk+ theme has a new slim scrollbar style and a number of other enhancements.

Ubuntu's Software Center, which allows users to install and manage applications, got several noteworthy new features, including support for posting ratings and reviews. Canonical's Ubuntu One synchronization service got some nice user interface improvements and performance optimizations. The default music player in Ubuntu changed from Rhythmbox to Banshee in this new release, improving the out-of-the-box music experience for end users.

There is a lot to like in Ubuntu 11.04, but also a lot of room for improvement. We will give you an in-depth view of Unity next week in our upcoming feature-length review of Ubuntu 11.04. You can also download it for yourself today from the Ubuntu website.

Honestly, with Gnome and Ubuntu drifting further apart, I wonder if we might see not just a 2D fallback version of Unity in 2D, but all of Unity in QT in the future.

Shuttleworth has offered high praise for QT repeatedly over the years. He has demonstrated that he is willing to make major shifts with Ubuntu.

If Unity was written as a Plasma workspace, then users could easily and effortlessly switch between "workspaces" in seconds.

I'd be curious to see how long it would take to recreate the Gnome 3 shell, or Unity as a Plasma workspace.

The KDE/Plasma environment would also open up inroads to mobile devices. And users would have more freedom/choice to switch between a traditional desktop, KDE Netbook, Unity, Plasma Active, etc. workspaces.

I hope that one day the apps become decoupled from the base enough that I can run an LTS base and choose to have the newest apps.

This. Firefox 4 is one of the reason I will upgrade tonight when I get home. I just don't understand why we have to wait for a new distro to get the new software. I am aware of the PPAs, but frankly, this is not the answer.

I actually had to google "how to find system settings" after install 11.04. I'm one of those people who refuse to use an OS's search engine and I could not click my way to the system settings menu. Google told me to search for it and I did and found it but woah... the new UI will take some time for me.

I hope that one day the apps become decoupled from the base enough that I can run an LTS base and choose to have the newest apps.

This. Firefox 4 is one of the reason I will upgrade tonight when I get home. I just don't understand why we have to wait for a new distro to get the new software. I am aware of the PPAs, but frankly, this is not the answer.

I do this in openSUSE, where I will use a stable base from a major distro release (such as 11.3 or 11.4) but will then install a repo specifically for the latest packages for a particular package, such as Firefox, Chrome, KDE, etc.

openSUSE also just started Tumbleweed, which is somewhat of a rolling release repository. I can start with the openSUSE 11.4 base, and then use Tumbleweed to install a newer package as it comes out.

OS makers need to understand once and for all that the main quality of an OS is to be unobtrusive. It's something to launch apps from, and nothing else. Linux must focus on the install process, which is still far from perfect, and stop trying to do fancy stuff that will confuse users.

Case in point regarding improvements required to the installation process- my dual boot (10.10+ seven starter) netbook offers me no less than 10 (TEN !!) startup options in GRUB upon booting. Only 2 are neede and justified. And there's no way to clean that up by changing the ordering, putting the exotic ones in a "More Options" submenu... - there's still some weird stuff going on with VLC and manual tweaks to do to get it to run fine. It actually runs much better for me under Linux than under Seven now, but the tweaking part, especially the hunting for docs relevant to my GPU and my exact Ubuntu version was confusing, time consuming, and a bit scary.- I still haven't found how to access networks shares setup with Seven's fancy new sharing tools. I had to disable those, go old school, and open my shares so wide I hope my neighbour's kids are not being corrupted as we speak.- I still haven't managed to get rsynch to reliably do differential backups from an NTFS partition to another one.- same for the RDP server. VNC is fugly, but I can't seem to get Linux's RDP server to work. I'm sure 'm making a stupid newb mistake... I just don't know which.

OS makers need to understand once and for all that the main quality of an OS is to be unobtrusive. It's something to launch apps from, and nothing else. Linux must focus on the install process, which is still far from perfect, and stop trying to do fancy stuff that will confuse users.

Case in point regarding improvements required to the installation process- my dual boot (10.10+ seven starter) netbook offers me no less than 10 (TEN !!) startup options in GRUB upon booting. Only 2 are neede and justified. And there's no way to clean that up by changing the ordering, putting the exotic ones in a "More Options" submenu...

What options are these? Older kernels? Doesn't "apt-get autoremove" work, and can you not reorder your /boot/grub/menu.lst? I don't dual boot so I'm not sure what else, other than older kernels and Windows, might be present

StormyParis wrote:

- there's still some weird stuff going on with VLC and manual tweaks to do to get it to run fine. It actually runs much better for me under Linux than under Seven now, but the tweaking part, especially the hunting for docs relevant to my GPU and my exact Ubuntu version was confusing, time consuming, and a bit scary.

This is really more to do with VLC than the OS, and the VLC developers can't do much about it either if you just install the binary. The best you can hope for is for someone to list the best settings for your particular set up. This is what you sign up for when you start using open source. By the way, did you try compiling VLC from source?

I'm an ubuntu user right back to Dapper days, but they've lost me with this one. The lack of configurability is the deal breaker. I mean, who's using my laptop? Me or Mark? The idea that I can't set up my workspace the way that is easiest for me is just plain nuts.

(Yes, I know I can use the "classic" desktop. I can also use another distro, which is where I'm headed. Debian + kde.)

Also, there are some huge rough edges with the whole user interface. Like johns996 says above, having to search the web to find out how to get at system settings?! Hello?

(I pointed out that problem in the relevant ubuntu dev and user forums a couple of months ago. There were plenty of other comments expressing disbelief, too. I guess the days when ubuntu listened to its users are over.)

Once again the Linux people have their priorities wacked up. There was nothing inherently wrong with the Gnome 2 desktop. Sure it looks a bit dated, but it works. But hey let's waste precious developer time replacing it with something else. Instead of fixing all the many problems with Linux in general.

I've been using 11.04 for about a week (beta 2) and yes, it has rough edges. It took me some time to get used to the new layout. If I have my laptop plugged into a higher rez monitor and push icons to the far right, then unplug the monitor, the icons are lost off the edge of the screen.

But this ain't no LTS, and frankly I like the new look and feel. I like that a focus has been put on screen real estate. That's a really big deal for me.

This is just a first step. Ubuntu's fixed 6 month release schedule means that big steps forward aren't going to have the polish afforded to other open-ended release scheduled projects. There will be upgrades. There will be patches. And 11.10 will probably have a tweaky little UI for making the side panel do whatever your heart desires.

OS makers need to understand once and for all that the main quality of an OS is to be unobtrusive. It's something to launch apps from, and nothing else. Linux must focus on the install process, which is still far from perfect, and stop trying to do fancy stuff that will confuse users.

As a Linux user, I honestly don't understand what is wrong about the 'install' process. If you ask someone who has never used windows before to install something, they wouldn't know what to do either.

StormyParis wrote:

Case in point regarding improvements required to the installation process- my dual boot (10.10+ seven starter) netbook offers me no less than 10 (TEN !!) startup options in GRUB upon booting. Only 2 are neede and justified. And there's no way to clean that up by changing the ordering, putting the exotic ones in a "More Options" submenu...

You can edit your /etc/grub.conf file and reorder / remove the entries that you do not want. (be warned that if you ever need to boot into debug mode for some reason and you've removed it from the list, you're going to have to use a liveCD to recover).

What options are these? Older kernels? Doesn't "apt-get autoremove" work, and can you not reorder your /boot/grub/menu.lst? I don't dual boot so I'm not sure what else, other than older kernels and Windows, might be present

I think /boot/grub/menu.lst is not used anymore in GRUB2.If the system has been upgraded from older versions of Ubuntu (or other distros) and already had GRUB 1, then it's probably still using it, but if it's a fresh install of a recent Ubuntu version, it would have GRUB2 instead.

Once again the Linux people have their priorities wacked up. There was nothing inherently wrong with the Gnome 2 desktop. Sure it looks a bit dated, but it works. But hey let's waste precious developer time replacing it with something else. Instead of fixing all the many problems with Linux in general.

I'm in no way defending this Ubuntu release, but it really bothers me that some people assume you can take developer time away from one project and apply it to another. Volunteers will work on what they want to work on, which is why you got a lot of "new shiney." You can't just take someone who has been working on desktop applications for the last 10 years and tell them to go fix bugs in the Linux kernel.

Once again the Linux people have their priorities wacked up. There was nothing inherently wrong with the Gnome 2 desktop. Sure it looks a bit dated, but it works. But hey let's waste precious developer time replacing it with something else. Instead of fixing all the many problems with Linux in general.

I'm in no way defending this Ubuntu release, but it really bothers me that some people assume you can take developer time away from one project and apply it to another. Volunteers will work on what they want to work on, which is why you got a lot of "new shiney." You can't just take someone who has been working on desktop applications for the last 10 years and tell them to go fix bugs in the Linux kernel.

Hmm, maybe I'm foolish, but I was assuming that most people working on Unity were paid Canonical employees.

I have been experimenting with both Gnome Shell and Unity throughout their testing periods. At first I thought I was going to settle on Gnome Shell as my new desktop but instead I went with Unity. There have been a lot of gripes and complaints about Unity, but I just don't see them. Yes it is different, but it is really not wildly different from Gnome 2. The indicator sections is in the same place as the old panel and system tray. The applications are pretty much the same as well. The dash and dock are different, yes , but they become easy very quickly. The dash lens' do need some work if you are sifting through the whole list of programs. However, if you just type the name of the program into the dash to launch something you don't keep in the dock, you will find it is much quicker than sifting through menu structures. I just pres the super key and type and I'm done. I don't have to drill through a million menus to find what I want.

I also have to say that this release has probably the most working functionality out of the box of any Ubuntu release. The audio options have been much improved, the installer is even more powerful and polished. The default theme has been improved as well. There is a lot to like about this release. It certainly does look different than previous releases, but if you give it a shot I think you'll be impressed.

In terms of power users, the terminal is still there, as is all the underlying functionality. Also, if you are that much of a power user that tweaks everything down to that last detail, you are probably someone that wasn't in love with the default Gnome 2 setup either and have tweaked it heavily or switched to KDE and will probably not like Unity anyway. The classic setup is still present as well and you can easily switch to it. But if you give Unity a fair shot, you may be impressed.

It seems like every time a new version of KDE or GNOME (or even a distro nowadays) comes out, they've overhauled the interface; again.

Am I seeing things here? Isn't this disruptive?

No you're seeing right, that's pretty much what happens. And yes, it is very disruptive. But as leedo said, that's what happens when a bunch of volunteers make an OS. Everybody wants to do the fancy UI stuff that's immediately visible to the end user, even if that means remaking it over and over.

Case in point regarding improvements required to the installation process- my dual boot (10.10+ seven starter) netbook offers me no less than 10 (TEN !!) startup options in GRUB upon booting. Only 2 are neede and justified. And there's no way to clean that up by changing the ordering, putting the exotic ones in a "More Options" submenu...

What options are these? Older kernels? Doesn't "apt-get autoremove" work, and can you not reorder your /boot/grub/menu.lst? I don't dual boot so I'm not sure what else, other than older kernels and Windows, might be present

one for seven, one for HP recovery, one for my FAT shared data partition (not even bootable, I have no clue why or how it got in there), and indeed, a handful for ubuntu, for various kernels and error states (and don't remember the exact wording, but something akin to windows "safe mode with network" and so on.

I did dig a bit into how to change the grub list (i remember editing a menu.lst or some such by hand a while back). It seems the latest version is extremely fancy... so as usual with fancy things, nothing is editable by hand (there's even remarks **DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE**), and yet the end result stinks. I can't yet install Linux exclusively on my friends an family's PCs (no good Scrabble game ), but can't really throw that boot menu in their faces, either.

I like this. It dumbs down the interface enough for Linux noobs, but provides the "classic" version for power-users that love to get their hands dirty and customize everything. I could complain about them dumbing down the modern PC to nothing but an oversized iPod, but let's face it, that's exactly what the average computer user needs. And before the flame war starts, Ars people do *not* represent the average computer user. Ars users would be the upper 25% of the bell curve, if not further out.